| Shakespeare’s Macbeth at O.D.U., or is it? | | Print | |
| Written by M..J. Garland | |
| Monday, 06 November 2006 | |
 Old Dominion University opened the new University Theatre with William Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Whenever I think of this production I think of Lady Macbeth’s line, “Out, out damn spot.” Like the images of this production that have been burned on to my cornea.
Many of us may know the story of Macbeth or have some familiarity with William Shakespeare, a.k.a. “The Bard.” However, this O.D.U. production sheds a new light on the traditional and brings forth a multi-media production. Now, I have nothing against updating, adapting, or even finding new interpretations of productions. In fact, with Shakespeare I encourage it as long as it is done with a clear vision. That is not the case here.
I had many hopes when I first entered the theatre and found a stage with three white walls, upstage, stage right and stage left, as well as multiple white cubes upstage. I thought to myself, “Yes, a new fresh look at the often-seen Macbeth!" Then I opened the program and knew right then and there that I was about to see Mac”NOT”. The program read Macbeth, directed by Stephen Pullen, written by William Shakespeare. As soon as I noticed the director’s name above the writer’s I knew this was more about the director than the play.
The play begins with the witches and a chorus of women serving as the Coven. This brought a mystical feeling to the open and very popular scene of Macbeth. This scene was one of the two highlights of the entire production. The other highlight was the use of projections/film on the back and side white walls to portray the evening sky and the forest. Unfortunately, these great scenic elements were only about five minutes of the production. Well, there are the highlights. Moving on.
Some of the soliloquies were filmed live and projected on the rear wall as they were delivered. This was definitely distracting to say the least. Who do I watch, the actor or the projection of the actor? Well, the production was directed for the stage so I’ll watch the actor, but the intensity was so subtle since it was being projected into film that the actor was communicating nothing. Or was the actor actually performing for the stage, in which case the acting was overdone for film? I’m not sure and I stopped trying to figure it out. Also, why weren't all the soliloquies projected? Is it because some were in the mind and others were voiced? If so, I may be one of the few who figured it out... or I have completely missed the mark.
I have to say I am sorry for the students. I felt many of them had a grasp of the language and the bells and whistles the director inserted into the production just hindered their performance. It was as if the director was saying the students weren’t good enough so we had to throw all of this multi-media at you to distract from the poor performances. Don’t worry cast, that wasn’t the case.
Michael Fisher as the title character of Macbeth holds the strongest understanding of Shakespeare’s language and actually uses many moments of subtlety in creating this character. Mr. Fisher has a presence on stage that holds its own amongst a cast of many. Others to mention are Robert Wilson as MacDuff, whose size and vocal strength commands the audience’s attention. Fisher and Wilson have quite an impressive sword fight near the end of the production. In the past my favorite role in all of Macbeth has been the Porter, but in this production I think the humor was lost and I am not sure if that is due to the director or the cast member Carissa Robertson who portrayed it.
Often when we go to the theatre we ask ourselves, “was that the actor’s choice or the director’s?” In this case, I can say the director got in the way of the production. Mr. Pullen should stick to directing film, which I’m sure he’s good at, and leave the stage directing to the educators and the professionals.
Macbeth runs through November 5th at the University Theatre of O.D.U. on the corner of Hampton Blvd. and 47th St.
|
I feel this play was directed to show the bells and whistles of the new University Theatre with no respect for the actors. 
|
I am in total agreement with M.J.'s review, however I think there is something he left out: the sound cues. They were so obtrusive that I could not understand anything that was going on. Even the ambient noise of the crickets drowned out the actors. I had never seen The Scottish Play before this production (yes I am shamed :() and refused to allow this show to be my first impression of the play. I left after the first act as a result of which. From what I've heard I didn't miss much. Some may be angered by this, but should one be forced to sit through something that he/she cannot hear or comprehend? Even though it is one of the most infamous plays of all time?! I know that it is capable of so much more. That's not to say that the actors and actresses didn't present a great show, it was just overshadowed by, as M.J. so aptly put it, 'visual masturbation.' Also, since University Theater had been closed for renovations (which were, sadly, minimal), most of the actors had not had a chance to perform in such a large space. Pullen should have spent more time training his actors to PROJECT! I think the stylistisc choices were way off target as well. It seemed as though the play took place during Arabian Nights rather than uh, Scotland... I mean, come on, The Scottish King looked like the Dread Pirate Roberts and at every moment I expected the Scottish Queen to break out into the dance of the seven veils. The Scottish Play has a history of being cursed and, although (to my knowledge) there have been no injuries, this production is still cursed: cursed to the realm of incompetent direction. Sorry to all of the actors in the show. I commend your efforts and great strides to overcome the poor direction, but some things cannot be helped. I hope you forgive me for my harsh words. If anyone wants to discuss it, please feel free to contact me. You know how to get in touch. To Mr. Pullen: this is not a film department. It's THEATRE! Spend more time with your actors than creating a technological terror. You'll find the actors can do fine on their own (with proper coaching, that is. Are you capable of that?). Thanks for your time, Expressing one's opinion is the right of anyone that spends the time reading OHR's content. Reviews lacking reparte (vitriolic or otherwise) are cause for concern. Master Elliott has chosen not to pick up the gauntlet thrown down by Clyde...so far. I am confident that when he does we will be dazzled. Sorry, I don't think MJ's review was lame; it was very well stated. Personally, I for one (and it looks like, possibly the only one!)also believe that this production of 'Micky-B' was, for want of a better word, visual masturbation. In other words, due to lack of substance, ODU hijacked-off with my money. I felt insulted, as if I, as an audience member, wasn't given credit for the brains to figure anything out without a visual assist. Does M. J. have any experience in theatre? Oh, I think one might be surpirsed. Shouldn't that be 'second-most-lame'? Joking aside, how about you explain where you disagree with Garland? I am prepared to be impressed. This is the second-lamest review I've read on this web site (the first was Mike Diana's review of Aida). Can any grammar-bludgeoning, unthinking moron write reviews for this web site? If you don't know anything about the English language and know even less about theatre, then please resist the urge to write theatrical reviews. Please? |